SWAZILAND@NEWSLETTER EXTRA
PUBLISHED BY SOUTHERN AFRICA CONTACT (DENMARK)

[Horizontal Rule]


The People's United Democratic Movement of Swaziland (PUDEMO)
International Office
Australia, Asian and the Pacific Region
E-mail: pudemo@...
April 16, 2006


Intensify the border blockade against Swaziland


On April 12, 2006 South African workers and supporters of the struggle for
democracy in Swaziland staged successful blockades at all of Swaziland’s
borders. The protest was in commemoration of the death of democracy on
April 12, 1973. On this fateful day, the late King Soubhuza II suspended
the Independence Constitution, declared an indefinite state of emergency
and imposed a life ban on political parties. In the 2006 blockades, more
than twenty people were arrested and some sustained injuries when the
South African Police Service (SAPS) used rubber bullets to disperse the
peaceful protest. Those arrested include senior members of the South
African labour movement.

Condemn police violence
The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) is extremely disturbed by
the apartheid-style police violence against South African citizens who
participated in a peaceful protest to support the struggle for democracy
in Swaziland.

The police violence is abhorrent and unwarranted. It invokes painful
memories of a pro-apartheid police establishment whose main goal was to
sustain an evil system of government. We did not expect this from a
post-apartheid police organisation governed by one of the most progressive
democratic constitutions in the world. Police brutality against peaceful
political protest is symptomatic of intolerant totalitarian regimes such
as the absolute monarchy government of Swaziland. In the lead up to the
border protest, the regime in Swaziland warned its citizens against
participating in the protest and deployed troops and armed police at its
border posts.

Through this brutality, the SAPS has disgraced the South African system of
democracy, political tolerance and respect for human and political rights.
Thus the conduct by the SAPS must be seen by all as a shameful act which
warrants the strongest condemnation possible. Democratic forces around the
world must register their disgust against this police violence. PUDEMO is
pleased to learn that the police have now released all those who were
arrested. However, it is not known whether charges have been preferred
against the pro-democracy activists.


Border protest: a commitment to free Swaziland
The border protest, which was organised by the Swaziland Solidarity
Network (SSN), is part of an ongoing commitment by the South African
public to support the democratisation process in Swaziland. For ten years,
SSN affiliated organisations such as The South African Congress of Trade
Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) have
relentlessly upheld their commitment to help free Swaziland. In pursuit of
this commitment, SSN and its affiliates have, through peaceful public
protest actions, demanded significant democratic change in Swaziland which
takes cognisance of international requirements such as those established
by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On several
occasions, the South African-based solidarity network joined the people of
Swaziland in their protests against:

· the ban on political party participation in national politics
· the political discrimination embedded within the Commonwealth-sponsored
constitution making process
· torture and violence against the democratic and worker’s movements
· political persecution and imprisonment of political and labour activists
· neglect of public responsibility, e.g., the failure to provide basic
public healthcare and,
· misuse of public resources to satisfy obscenely lavish royal lifestyles

PUDEMO highly commends and unreservedly endorses the South African
people’s support, including the recent border protest. We regard the
action to blockade passage of goods and services to and from Swaziland as
a form of legitimate public protest to force the monarchy regime to agree
to long-standing demands for significant progress towards democratisation.

In view of the geo-economic position of Swaziland, this support is a
valuable political asset to the Swazi struggle for democracy.
Geographically, Swaziland is almost surrounded by South Africa with only
one border with a second country – Mozambique. South Africa is Swaziland’s
largest trading partner and Swaziland has a high degree of reliance on
this partnership which accounts for about 60% of total exports and 96% of
total imports.

Sustained economic action by the South African public, if combined with
government policy to economically isolate the monarchy regime, has great
potential to yield substantial political results in Swaziland. It is
inconceivable that Swaziland would have the capacity to resist sustained
economic pressure brought to bear on the regime by a combination of
government and public action in South Africa. Such action has potential to
generate space inside Swaziland for a business and public revolt against
the monarchy regime.


Economic sanctions as effective political weapon: the anti-apartheid
experience
Economic sanctions are a widely used form of peaceful protest against
repugnant regimes which oppress and neglect their citizens. They were used
successfully against the apartheid system in the 1980s. Increasingly, the
effects of international sanctions compelled the business sector to enter
public political debate. By mid 1980s, the South African business
community and transnational corporations began to turn away from the
apartheid government. For these corporations, the apartheid state had
become a major liability to business because of its recalcitrant position
on democratisation. Prospects for business recovery did not rest with the
protection of apartheid but with joining the anti-apartheid movement in
creating conditions for a stable democratic state. Thus, the way out of
the continued impact of international economic sanctions was to retreat
from apartheid.

It was against this backdrop that in 1985 a high profile business
delegation began to work with the leading liberation movement, the African
National Congress led tripartite alliance. This shift in political
alliance was a major setback to the apartheid state as it desperately
tried to resist demands for wide-ranging political change.

Although international economic sanctions were used successfully in the
South African struggle, they were never perceived as the only panacea.
Instead, they were part of multifaceted struggles incorporating various
strategies including armed struggle, mass action and clandestine
activities. Furthermore, support for economic sanctions was not without
its critics. The pro-apartheid media (local and international, including
the Swazi media) echoed the apartheid government’s opposition to economic
sanctions. Foreign governments with strong economic interests in South
Africa such as the United Kingdom and United States of America initially
opposed economic sanctions but subsequently endorsed them because of a
swell in international support for sanctions. Most importantly, fearful of
local political backlash, the Thatcher and Regan administrations preferred
to remain in office than continue resisting local and international
pressure to isolate the apartheid regime. Opposition to economic sanctions
was premised on one dominant discourse - that the sanctions would hurt the
Black poor people they purported to help.

The ANC, SACP and COSATU rejected this argument as absurd because Black
people had not benefited from the system of apartheid. Under apartheid,
the socio-economic wellbeing of Black people was grossly and deliberately
neglected. The apartheid state exercised minimal responsibility towards
the political, social and economic development of the Black population.
Instead, it was mostly preoccupied with the wellbeing of the white
minority population. It created an oligarchic society characterised by a
highly mobile white community with skills and wealth, on the one hand, and
highly immobile Black community which had little apart from its labour
which was exchanged for very poor recompense.

Swazi media and government reaction against the border protest
The resemblance between opposition to economic sanctions against apartheid
and the reaction of the Swazi media against the recent border protest is
striking. There are only two daily newspapers in Swaziland and both have
opposed the border protest. One of these papers is the royal family-owned
Swazi Observer. Given that this paper usually opposes political actions by
unions, it was interesting to see the prominent coverage it gave to the
Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU)’s decision not to participate
in the border protest.

Apparently, Jan Sithole, the SFTU’s Secretary General, issued a national
notice against the protest claiming that his union was not involved in the
planning process. On the day of the protest, the Swazi Observer (April12,
2006) describes Sithole as having acted “bravely”. King Mswati III praised
the trade union leadership and workers for putting the country first by
refusing to participate in the border protest. The King told the Weekend
Swazi Observer (April 15, 2006) that he was:

…encouraged by reports that some leaders of the unions took a well
considered decision not to participate.
This shows a sense of maturity and a consideration for the country and its
people. Anything that seeks to undermine peace, the economy and the
country’s security must be opposed by all.

Cabinet ministers have also commended the union leadership and have
paraded the decision as a trophy. The regime’s comments have thus
completely disregarded the SFTU’s explanation for its decision. Before and
after the border protest, the SFTU leadership issued public statements
that the decision not to participate was taken because of breakdown in
communication and that it actually supports the border blockade (see Times
of Swaziland, April, 13, 2006).

The Swazi Observer (April12, 2006) editorial comment predicted apocalyptic
economic consequences of political actions targeting the economy and warns:

No amount of political demands and pressure should leave us a poorer
country because then we would be undermining the interests of the people
we purport to fight for.
Any action that frustrates trade and business activity is a one-way ticket
to gross suffering and vulnerability and should be discouraged at all
costs.

A day after the protest, the Times of Swaziland, a quasi-independent daily
newsprint owned by a British conglomerate, echoed the Swazi Observer’s
commentary. It described the border protest as unacceptable and calls for
“serious action by the local and South African Governments” as well as the
Southern African Development Cooperation (SADC). According to the Times of
Swaziland, “…unions exceeded their mandate to cause untold harm to an
economy that supports the workers in whose sympathy they staged the
blockade.” These statements overlook the current political culture in
South Africa established by the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa Act 108 of 1996. Under the Constitution, South African citizens
have rights and freedoms to protest. Constitutionally, the government
cannot, as suggested by the Times of Swaziland commentary, punish its
citizens for exercising their constitutional rights and freedoms.

The reaction to the border protest is thus reminiscent of the 1980s
alliance between the monarchy regime and the Swazi media against
international economic embargo on South Africa. During this period, the
Swazi media joined hands with the Liqoqo regime and subsequently with the
current government of King Mswati III to denounce economic sanctions
against apartheid. The regime went further to collude with the South
African “death squad” to hunt down anti-apartheid activists in Swaziland.
Several ANC members were murdered and “kidnapped” from Swaziland police
stations by apartheid agents. This criminal behaviour of the Government of
Swaziland was never investigated and reported in the local media. Whilst
other states in Southern Africa supported economic sanctions against the
apartheid state and gave protection to anti-apartheid activists, the
monarchy regime dined with the devil.

Dining with the devil
From the mid 1980s to the 1990s, Swaziland benefited from its
pro-apartheid position by acting as a gateway to international markets for
South African companies. Within this period, investment from the South
African manufacturing sector boosted the Swazi economy which registered
healthy growth at an average rate of 7% per annum (WTO, 1998: IMF, 2002).
The monarchy spent lavishly on arms, royal palaces and luxurious
automobiles.

However, the economy sharply decelerated after the collapse of the
apartheid regime in 1994. During apartheid, South African manufacturers
had moved to Swaziland to evade international economic sanctions but after
1994, they largely returned to South Africa. There was thus a massive
flight of capital from Swaziland which left the Swazi economy in strife.
In the early 1990s, the economy slowed down and growth fell to 2.1% at the
beginning of the 21st century. The International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Country Report of 2006, estimates real GDP growth in Swaziland to fall to
1.8% for the 2005/2006 financial year. This prediction was correct as the
Swaziland Minister of Finance acknowledged in his recent budget speech
that the 2005/2006 budget “…has been prepared under very hard economic
conditions with barely a 2% GDP growth rate.”

Thus the benefits of the 1980s had created a false economy and the
position of support for the apartheid economy was misconceived. The flight
of capital has been compounded by other factors such as irresponsible
public spending, lack of innovation, reliance on climatic economic
activities, mismanagement, corruption and most importantly, the absence of
political accountability.

Grim economic outlook and social neglect: indications of a failed state
Like the pro-apartheid media in the 1980s, the Swazi media ignores one
important aspect of the debate about economic sanctions – that the
majority of Swazis gain very little benefit from the current economic
system and have much to gain from significant change in the way in which
Swaziland is governed. The current system has driven the majority of
Swazis into abject poverty. They have been caught in a treadmill and are
hurting now.

Assessments of the level of poverty in Swaziland give a grim reading.
Government budget records show that from 2002/3 to 2004/5 financial year,
the number of people living below the poverty line (less than US$1 a day)
has increased from 65% to 69%. In desperation, Swazis are increasingly
resorting to informal loan sharks to survive and are being charged
interest of up to 360% per annum. The King’s response has been to tell
Swazis to improve their budgeting skills and to save part of their income
for emergencies (see the Weekend Swazi Observer, April 15, 2006). He
cautioned “his subjects” against “careless borrowing” and advised them to
apply a “strict regime of ‘saving for rainy days’” (Ibid). King Mswati III
has completely missed the point that Swazis have no money to buy bread
today and certainly have no spare cash to save for later. For most Swazis,
there are no financially sunny days any more – all are “rainy days”. The
country is facing an economic meltdown and the proliferation of loan
sharks is merely one of the more obvious signs of a failed state.

The King’s response symbolises the obscene disconnection between the rich
and the poor in Swaziland. It is reminiscent of the comment which has come
to symbolise the position of the aristocracy in the French Revolution.
When told that the poor people had no bread, Marie Antoinette is reported
to have said “let them eat cake”.

The King’s response is also profoundly unSwazi and again demonstrates the
fraudulent nature of his claims to be the guardian and arbiter of Swazi
culture. One of the strongest and deepest values of Swazi culture is
Ubuntfu - a communal approach to life and deep sense of responsibility to
others. Our tradition is to help people who are poor and struggling in
life. Our tradition is not to criticise that person and call them stupid
or lazy. Yet this is precisely what King Mswati III has done. He is
telling the majority of Swazis who are living below the poverty line that
their poverty is the result of their lack of budgeting, not due to his
profligacy and contempt for the welfare of Swazi citizens.

Whilst the government spends lavishly on the royal family household and
politicians, the majority of Swazis have no jobs, nothing to eat, are sick
and dying because of the acute lack of healthcare services. Unemployment
is estimated at 30% and much higher among the youth population (IMF, 2006;
Government of Swaziland, 2006).

More than 20% of the population of approximately 1.1 million, an
equivalent of 220, 000 people, are living with HIV/AIDS. In 2003 alone,
17, 000 adults and children died from HIV/AIDS (WHO, 2004). In Swaziland
the death rate amongst adults is exacerbated by the high prevalence of
tuberculosis, an infection that can be adequately contained and eradicated
through effective health policies. The World Health Organisation (June,
2005) observes that with a ratio of 1:3 adults infected, “…Swaziland faces
a generalised HIV/AIDS epidemic”.

However, WHO is incorrect in its assessment of government response to the
HIV epidemic. According to WHO, “the Government of Swaziland has
demonstrated a high level of political commitment to fight HIV/AIDS since
the start of the epidemic” in 1987. Contrary to this observation, the high
infection rate is a result of state neglect of its responsibility and duty
of care to protect its citizens through effective containment policies.
Swaziland authorities were very slow to understand the potential impact of
HIV/AIDS and actually discouraged people from using condoms. Current
neglect of the healthcare system by the government shows that there is
still a serious lack of political commitment in fighting the epidemic.

In 2005, Swaziland’s authorities refused to join the rest of the world to
commemorate the annual World Aids Day because it was held during the time
of the sacred Incwala ceremony. Incwala is a sacred traditional ritual
which represents the spiritual renewal of the nation and affirms our
belief that life is sacred. Traditionally, it is a symbol of hope and
healing, particularly when the nation is under siege from natural
disasters such as drought and disease. The ceremony draws tens of
thousands of young and old men, and many Swazis continue to appreciate its
significance. HIV/AIDS campaigns share the core values of Incwala –
renewal of the nation’s health and the protection of life. The coincidence
of Incwala and World Aids Day presented an opportunity to the authorities
and the HIV/AIDS campaigners to raise awareness of the epidemic and
promote positive health messages. A combination of these ceremonies would
have had long-lasting effects, particularly among the older generation and
rural population which have strong sense of Swazi traditions. It would
also have provided the King with a well-overdue opportunity to make amends
for his disastrous initial response to HIV in which he declared the use of
condoms to be “unSwazi”. The decision not to commemorate World Aids Day
was short-sighted and yet again reveals the truly careless and incompetent
response of the regime to the HIV epidemic. The failure to grasp the
opportunities offered by the coincidence of Incwala and World Aids Day
shows the absence of innovative ideas and leadership among the ruling
elite and its determination to ignore the biggest threat ever faced by the
Swazi nation.

With 70% of farmers engaged in subsistence food production, the high rate
of HIV/AIDS has almost incapacitated the capacity of rural households to
produce sufficient food supplies, even in good rainy seasons. Assessments
by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme
(WFP) published in 2006 show that “many households are facing chronic and
acute food insecurity, which is not merely caused by poor climatic
conditions, but is also compounded by the effects of HIV/AIDS and a
general economic decline.”

The healthcare service in Swaziland is a disgrace and the authorities
should hang their heads in shame for this acute neglect. Health facilities
such as the Mbabane Government Hospital illustrate the government’s
complete failure to meet its responsibilities. Reports in the local media
have revealed horrific conditions at the Mbabane Government Hospital
including assault of patients, rat infestations, sanitation problems and
inadequate pharmaceutical, food and water supplies. (see Times of
Swaziland, 17/12/05; 28/12/05; 26/02/06). Investigative journalists from
The Times of Swaziland (26/02/06) describe the situation at the Mbabane
Government Hospital:

Instead of giving hope for life to patients, the place simply sucks life
away from them day after day until they die. Once they are admitted there,
there is simply no hope that they will come out alive.

The place is dirty and it stinks.

The smell is now permanent and there are allegations that some nurses are
shunning this particular ward because of the terrible state it is in. This
is where patients are made to drink water that is also used to flush away
their waste. The same water is also used to wash the sick patients.

“We have no option but to wash them here because there is no other place
where we can wash them,” commented one patient.

Just when he was speaking, a female came with a bucket full of human waste
to deposit in the sink where he was washing his dishes.

“This is a norm, we have no other place where we can deposit our waste
this is because the toilets do not flush and even if they did, there is no
water to run the waste,” commented another patient.

On April 15, 2006, the Swazi News (Saturday Times of Swaziland) reported
yet another water crisis at the Mankayane government hospital. The
hospital has had no water for a week due to a burst pipe which could have
been repaired within a day. However, this was not done and hospital
authorities decided to send patients home as the crisis worsened.
Meanwhile, the government had the audacity to spend over E200,000 (approx.
US$33,000) of public funds on luxurious curtains for the Prime Minister’s
residence. The cost of fixing the water crisis at the Mankayane hospital
would come nowhere near the money spent on the curtains. Whilst public
health facilities have no running water and Swazi citizens are denied the
basic right to healthcare, the Prime Minister barricades himself behind
luxurious curtains. The sick at Mankayane hospital have gone home to die
and the Prime Minister cannot be seen behind his curtains –a symbol of
visual separation and indifference to the painful experience of many
Swazis.

The economic situation in Swaziland is grim and shows no signs of
improving. Swaziland is digging deeper into international reserves to
finance the waste of public resources and the lavish lifestyle of those in
authority. According to the 2005/6 budget reports, the economy registered
a deficit of 4.3% of GDP. Whilst the economic situation continues to
decline, corruption, misuse of public resources, political neglect and
financial mismanagement are on the increase. Recently, more than E50
million (approx. US$8.2m) has disappeared without trace and no one in
government is willing to take responsibility. This money was earmarked for
the purchase of a water drilling rig which would have made a difference in
supplying water in rural areas where the bulk of the poverty stricken
population lives.

In view of the economic trends over the past 10 years, it is inconceivable
that a solution to the economic crisis can be found in the existing system
of government. The Swaziland business community and foreign investors
should realise that the current system of government has become a big
liability to economic growth and business prosperity. As the South African
business community realised in the 1980s, the solution to this crisis is
the creation of a stable democratic state with a new social contract
between citizens and structures of governance. It is in the interest of
the Swazi business community to come out of their cocoons and help hasten
the change to democracy.

Our people are dying, hungry and sick and their situation cannot be
resolved through piecemeal political reforms such as the recently adopted
national constitution. We all have the responsibility and moral obligation
to give Swaziland a chance to rejuvenate.

Appeal to the Government of South Africa and South African citizens
For over twenty years now, PUDEMO has been relentless in its endeavour to
fight for political change through peaceful engagement with the monarchy
regime. We have appealed to the international community to seriously
consider economic sanctions against this repressive regime. The emphasis
of our appeal has been on South Africa because of its geo-economic
position.

PUDEMO reiterates its appeal to the Government of South Africa to stand up
for democracy in Swaziland and impose comprehensive economic sanctions
against the monarchy regime. In our view, if comprehensive sanctions are
imposed, it will take a relatively short period before the monarchy
relents to demands to open up space for significant political change. The
recent border blockade has reopened the debate on economic sanctions as a
form of struggle with great potential to yield political outcomes. Results
from the one-day border action are already evident. Government officials
including the head of state, King Mswati III, have been drawn into the
public debate about the political crisis in Swaziland. Comments from King
Mswati and his ministers reveal their fear of economic sanctions. The
hysteria about the border protest shows that economic sanctions have the
capacity to bite deep into the regime. South African citizens together
with their government can effectively exploit this vulnerability to hasten
broader political change and decelerate the slide into socio-economic
decay in Swaziland. A slide into further decay in Swaziland threatens
peace and security in the region.

The South African public, led by SSN and its affiliates, has taken the
initiative to help the people of Swaziland bring the repression and
economic decay to an end. PUDEMO supports this and calls for the
intensification of the economic blockade against the monarchy regime. We
appeal to the South African public to stay the course and not to relent
under scare tactics that economic sanctions will hurt the poor. Our people
now look up to the Government of South Africa to seriously reconsider this
issue and take a leadership role against the recalcitrant regime in
Swaziland. For too long now, the world has turned a blind eye on the
political crisis in Swaziland. King Mswati III and his ministers have been
at leisure in their endeavour to undermine regional and international
aspirations of responsible governance and democratic practices.
Consequently, Swaziland has, for a considerable period, been a stagnant
backwater where nothing happens because international organisations such
as the Commonwealth have decreed that nothing must happen.

In reaction to the border protest, King Mswati was quick to refer to the
Commonwealth endorsement of the constitution making process which he
described as inclusive. He also claimed that there are structures in
Swaziland through which citizens can express dissatisfaction with the
political condition. The argument is ridiculous, nonsensical and grossly
misleading. No one with knowledge of the political situation in Swaziland
would believe it. It contradicts the Constitutional Review Commission
Terms of Reference which prohibited political and civic organisation from
participating in the constitution making process. The product of this
process, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act, 2005 upholds
the ban on party participating in national politics.

Political intolerance and hostility against critics are core elements of
the current system of government founded upon the King’s Proclamation to
the Nation on April 12, 1973. It is against this background that the
government has refused to open dialogue with the pro-democracy movement in
Swaziland and to constructively contribute to international efforts to
improve the quality of governance. The prohibition of political party
participation in national politics grossly undermines the principles and
aspirations of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). One
of these aspirations is to see that “Africa adopts and implements
principles of democracy and good political economic and corporate
governance, and the protection of human rights becomes further entrenched
in every African country” (NEPAD). It is regrettable that the Government
of Swaziland has, to this date, not signed up to NEPAD’s Africa Peer
Review Mechanism (APRM) designed to monitor and assist progress towards
quality governance in Africa. This recalcitrant position is characteristic
of a totalitarian and secretive regime determined to stifle regional
progress. The absolute monarchy is a political system born of another age.
The time to change it is well overdue and South Africa’s contribution to
Swaziland’s development is absolutely crucial.

Dr Jabulane Matsebula
PUDEMO Representative
Australia, Asia and the Pacific Region

-----------------------------------
SWAZILAND@NEWSLETTER is published by Southern Africa Contact (SAC,
Denmark), and appears twice monthly. News items are for information only,
and strictly not for publication, broadcast or other forms of
redistribution.

If you wish either to subscribe or discontinue subscription send a mail
to: SAK-Swazinewsletter-subscribe@...

Earlier issues can be read at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/SAK-Swazinewsletter
If there are suggestions as to the content of the newsletter, please let
us know at pmm@...
See also the newly established photo archive. Click on photos in each
album to see an enlarged version. Send digital material for inclusion in
the photo archive to same address.

Support the democratic movement in Swaziland. Donations can be made
through the MANDELA FUND: BG Bank, Norre Voldgade 68, 1358 Copenhagen K,
Denmark. SWIFT-BIC: DABADKKK. Registration Number: 0274. Account Number:
3327000. The MANDELA FUND is a registered national collection in Denmark.
=====================================